A lack of active mining pools would be an indication that a coin is not being seriously mined in anyway. It's fairly easy to check pool stats. That combined with a missing developer and little to no trade volume would also indicate it's not being mined seriously. I think you have to look at the larger picture when determining a coin's health. PoB is still a new concept and it will take trial and error to get the selection process perfected. We certainly don't want to target coins in a hostile manner. Scam coins would certainly be a preferred target which would help rescue those left "holding the bag" as they say. Suggestions from the community on how to improve the process are welcome.

A lack of active mining pools would be an indication that a coin is not being seriously mined in anyway. It's fairly easy to check pool stats. That combined with a missing developer and little to no trade volume would also indicate it's not being mined seriously.

I think I can discern the main criteria:

Minimally, a candidate altcoin must be PoW-only and listed on some arbitrary exchange. fallingknife keeps a reasonably up-to-date list of exchanges but obviously, only those of which (s)he is aware. I recommend that you address the woolliness of the other criteria: “not being seriously mined”, “little to no trade volume”. In practice you will need actual numerical values, a likely contentious subject. Edit: the volume is at least partly satisfied, defined as: “under 0.2 BTC weekly Average”

The meaning of “a missing developer” is very unclear, there are a lot of unwarranted assumptions in those three words. Apart from the difficulty introduced by the fact that the notion of “a developer” is somewhat anomalous in the context of a peer-to-peer network (there is no practical means of enforcing the notion of an “official” anything), the use of the definite article incorrectly presupposes: that an altcoin must have at least one developer to function, that a developer must be identifiable as such in order for the coin to function, that the identified individual conforms to some as-yet-undefined specification of “acceptable”, etc, etc.

The task becomes even more challenging when considering the assumptions behind the term “missing” and how difficult it will be to operationalise them as criteria when they are so vague and unreliable (“missing” from where exactly? How long is “too long”?)

I recommend you undertake a paper-and-pencil public pilot project which at least touches on as many of these issues as possible so everyone can get a sense of the likely scope and range of application of the principle. Something from the tail end of coinmarketcap's listing that fits the criteria would probably do, or something with low trading (where the term “low” is defined in numerical coin/time terms) from Poloniex’ listing (as they have a reputation for not delisting --- but by the same token, ignore anything on Bittrex as they regularly cleanse their listing, something which C-CEX has also started to do). If handled sensitively, the very task of publicly selecting a candidate alt for this exercise will probably reveal any substantial disagreements and provide a context for resolving them (assuming they can be resolved).

A lack of active mining pools would be an indication that a coin is not being seriously mined in anyway. It's fairly easy to check pool stats. That combined with a missing developer and little to no trade volume would also indicate it's not being mined seriously.

The meaning of “a missing developer” is very unclear, there are a lot of unwarranted assumptions in those three words. Apart from the difficulty introduced by the fact that the notion of “a developer” is somewhat anomalous in the context of a peer-to-peer network (there is no practical means of enforcing the notion of an “official” anything), the use of the definite article incorrectly presupposes: that an altcoin must have at least one developer to function, that a developer must be identifiable as such in order for the coin to function, that the identified individual conforms to some as-yet-undefined specification of “acceptable”, etc, etc.

The task becomes even more challenging when considering the assumptions behind the term “missing” and how difficult it will be to operationalise them as criteria when they are so vague and unreliable (“missing” from where exactly? How long is “too long”?)

I understand what your getting at, I can certainly do a better job at explaining it. In my use of the term "Missing Developer" I guess you could apply the term lack of activity. If you look at CoinMarketCap for example you will get an idea of what I'm getting at. Coins in the top 20 or 30 seem to have similar things in common, an active developer or team of developers with a well laid out action plan for the future of a coin. This usually insures an active community helping out by submitting ideas and discussing the coin among other things. It also tends to coordinate pretty closely with number of individuals mining, staking, and trading the coin as well as the coins value and price stability. A coin that can maintain or increase it's value under a healthy trade volume is a coin I think most people would consider to be alive and under development. Some people might call this a Network Effect.

While you are correct that it should be difficult to determine in the context of a peer-to-peer network in practice it doesn't work that way. People who use and trade in alt coins look to a central figure or figures and the activity of those central figures to decide if a coin is worth investing in. When you look at coins that have no central figure or group steering their development and maintenance you tend to see no activity in trading, value, or overall interest. To most people it would give the impression that a coin is dead and worthless. Whether that's the fair way to determine value is a whole other conversation. I don't believe, and maybe I'm wrong, that a mathematical set of figures, algorithms, or clearly defined numbers could determine which coins are burn worthy any better than simple review and observation of the publicly available statistics could do. Again, maybe I'm wrong and there is a better way.

I recommend you undertake a paper-and-pencil public pilot project which at least touches on as many of these issues as possible so everyone can get a sense of the likely scope and range of application of the principle. Something from the tail end of coinmarketcap's listing that fits the criteria would probably do, or something with low trading (where the term “low” is defined in numerical coin/time terms) from Poloniex’ listing (as they have a reputation for not delisting --- but by the same token, ignore anything on Bittrex as they regularly cleanse their listing, something which C-CEX has also started to do). If handled sensitively, the very task of publicly selecting a candidate alt for this exercise will probably reveal any substantial disagreements and provide a context for resolving them (assuming they can be resolved).

I can certainly make the requirements more clear but I was trying to avoid getting over technical. At the end of the day it's impossible to please all people all the time. I will work on coming up with clearer guidelines as you suggested, as I think that's a great suggestion.

200 million credits have been premined for the purpose of Proof of Burn. Some of those credits may be diverted for giveaways and promotions from time to time, but the vast majority will be used for burns. PoW and Pos have no distribution caps but will be distributed very slowly. Between the 3 different distribution methods you can expect about 10 to 15 million credits to be distributed every year until the PoB funds run out. After this event the inflation rate will be at about 1% a year with the two remaining distribution methods until the end of time.

We are still in the process of finding a Burn Partner and getting listed on some exchanges, in the meantime just save up those credits. Now is a great time to mine as the difficulty is low. Enjoy! For more information you can visit our website here : http://dcredits.com/

This really is a solid coin and I urge anyone looking for a coin to mine or get into the crypto space to check out DGCS. Coin is brand new and has a small user base, but I really believe this coin has a nice value set. Check it out.